


Peer Reviewed

by ishandahalf



Category: The Old Guard (Comics), The Old Guard (Movie 2020)
Genre: Academia, Actual scholarly accuracy: questionable!, Alternate Universe - Academia, Alternate Universe - College/University, Alternate Universe - Modern Setting, Alternate Universe - Modern: No Powers, Alternate Universe - No Powers, Developing Relationship, Enemies to Lovers, Epistolary, Epistolary relationship, Eventual Romance, Getting Together, Humor, Identity Porn, M/M, Mistaken Identity, Research level: some effort to sound like I know what I’m talking about, Romance, academic diss-course, snippy academics
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2021-01-03
Updated: 2021-01-28
Packaged: 2021-03-11 02:00:38
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 8
Words: 20,066
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/28487220
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/ishandahalf/pseuds/ishandahalf
Summary: [From:] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)[Subject:] Ad-hoc note from the editorI have noticed an uncommon level of animosity in your responses to your reviewers (or rather, one reviewer in particular). I am writing to ask if you would please do your best to keep your interactions civil. In fairness, I have also sent a similar request to the reviewer you seem to have this friction with. I trust you will both try and remain more professional in the future.Again, thank you for submitting your work to this journal.Sincerely,James Copley, PhDEditor-in-ChiefJournal of Medieval StudiesAn (accidental) academic epistolary romance as (inadvertently) documented via a (theoretically) rigorously blinded peer review process.[citation needed]
Relationships: Joe | Yusuf Al-Kaysani/Nicky | Nicolò di Genova
Comments: 483
Kudos: 428





	1. The moon when I am lost in darkness

**Author's Note:**

> I’ve been mired in academia, as a student and then staff, for over 15 years. How has it taken me so long to write an Academic!AU? Particularly when I love them so much? Maybe I was waiting for the right fandom to come along - and here we are.
> 
> For those unfamiliar: when submitting academic papers for publication to a reputable journal, it undergoes a scholarly review process where the article is sent to peers in the field who can assess the article’s quality and merit. Different journals have different levels of blinding; usually the submitting author never knows who their reviewers are, but some journals use double-blinding and protect the identity of the authors from the reviewers as well (i.e. neither the authors nor reviewers know who the others are). The process below is what this correspondence (mostly) looks like, right down to the awful plain text formatting of the emails… Though I’ve taken a few creative liberties, of course.
> 
> Finally, a caveat: my particular field is not history, literature, theology, philosophy, or anything TOG-related whatsoever, so the scholarly content herein was a product of me doing some half-assed GoogleScholar-ing and a fake-it-’til-you-make-it, hand-wavy approach. I purposely tried to keep things vague, just enough to give an idea of a paper topic and the basic arguments behind it. Hopefully it all makes enough sense and I haven't totally fucked something up… 🤞

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] July 31, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-17-1066

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1066  
**Title:** “The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your submission entitled "“The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-17-1066 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

 _Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] September 1, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-17-1066 - Revision request

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1066  
**Title:** “The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your paper has now been assessed by the assigned peer reviewers. Whilst the paper is basically acceptable for publication there are a number of points raised via the peer review process which we feel require clarification before we can proceed. I am appending the reviewer comments below for your attention.

I must stress that each comment should be considered and it would be very useful if you could detail, in a covering letter submitted together with your revised manuscript, how you have answered each point.

To submit a revision, please go to https://editorialsys.com/jms and login as an Author. You will find your submission record there.

Please return to the Journal of Medieval Studies within 45 days.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS:

 ** _Reviewer #1:_**  
Excellent overview of a niche - and thereby understudied - facet of Islamic literature! While I have come across various analyses of the soul from a philosopher’s point of view which obviously used philosophical texts, the examination of poetry specifically in this way has thus far been an untapped area. The author has skillfully woven together a compelling argument from the poetic evidence, exploring portrayals of the soul in a romantic way that argues for devotion towards others on the mortal plane, rather than devotion towards a spiritual being.

A minor suggestion - I felt section 3 could have benefited from further elaboration to strengthen the argument. The mention of the poet’s own mortality and the transience of human life - it seems like this is opening the door towards a discussion of love as a precursor to immortality?

 ** _Reviewer #2:_**  
This may be a well-intentioned effort, but it is also a naïve presentation of a point of view that is not well-supported by evidence – it seems like this is veering towards being a polemic, rather than a scholarly article. Is the author bereft of romance in their own life that they are instead seeing declarations of love in poems where they do not exist? Or rather, I apologize - I should correct myself, for there is love there - but I disagree that it is between the poet and a secret subject of their writings. Beyond the argument for that love being directed towards man (I assume you mean ‘man’ in the general sense, as in a mortal being? Perhaps the word ‘mankind’, despite the obvious problems regarding misgendering, may be less confusing. Because the evidence for homosexual love here is sparse at best), I think the more obvious interpretation is that the object of their affection is their God. The lover-beloved model seems too simplistic here; does this not lend itself also to Augustine’s trinity theory?

Beyond that, the summary of the theoretical conceptualizations of the soul (lines 135-190) seems oversimplified. There are numerous works that I feel would be beneficial to cite there - for instance, Di Genova 2014 and Di Genova 2016 come to mind.

Lines 250-262: I am impatient with this vague assertion.

Line 311: I disagree.

I must admit that English is not my mother tongue and can be somewhat difficult for me - so while I believe this writing can technically be described as grammatically correct, I think some would also call it overly romantic and floral.

In general, the paper is overlong, very verbose, and contains unnecessary repetition. Too many pretentious words are used, as if wanting to hide the lack of substance behind pretty imagery.

I apologize that this review could not be more helpful; I would normally be happy to provide a line-by-line breakdown of suggestions I feel would greatly benefit this paper, but I have unfortunately (and uncharacteristically) left this review to the last minute due to some personal issues and simply do not have the time to elaborate further. However, I hope the comments I managed to find time to make will be enough to prompt a thorough revision of this work; perhaps a change in title, abstract, and content would suffice.

 ** _Reviewer #3:_**  
A compelling paper. Well-written, the author truly has a way with words. I particularly enjoyed the framing of the evolution of different conceptualizations of the soul; the argument of the soul as a metaphor for romantic love and desire, for attaining fundamental intellects and rational principles contrasted against the irrationality of emotions and love was well laid out. Could be further bolstered by looking into Theron et al. 2010 and Rucka 2017? I think they too have explored theories of the duality of the soul within other contexts that perhaps could be applied to the author’s argument.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] September 15, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for Revised Manuscript - JMS-D-17-1066-R1

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1066-R1  
**Title:** “The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your revised manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies. It will be returned to the previously assigned peer reviewers for their feedback.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Sincerely,  
_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

📎 ATTACHED COVER LETTER - RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (JMS-D-17-1066-R1 cover letter.docx):

To the editorial board of the Journal of Medieval Studies,  
Thank you very much for obtaining feedback for my manuscript (reference #JMS-D-17-1066). Based on the reviewer feedback, I have revised and resubmitted the manuscript. My specific responses to the individual reviewers and their comments can be found below.

 ** _Response to Reviewer #1:_**  
Thank you for your comments! Your suggestion that there was room to introduce the concept of immortality with regards to the soul was very perceptive. I have revised that section to include mention of the mortality/immortality paradox, and I agree that this strengthens my argument.

 ** _Response to Reviewer #2:_**  
I am going to generously assume that the personal issues you referenced in your initial review impacted you significantly enough that they had a negative influence on your reading comprehension. That is the only conclusion I can draw as to how one may have so severely misinterpreted my initial manuscript. For that reason I will respond to some of your comments, but I have chosen not to take your suggestions (though that is a charitable interpretation of that term) into account when revising my paper.

First, regardless of the presence of romance in one’s life, I am shocked that a reader would not be able to discern that the romantic imagery used is unambiguously directed towards another man. And yes, I do mean ‘man’ - as in, another male. I can only assume you were looking through a heteronormative and Eurocentric lens, and quite frankly am shocked that you would mention the _“evidence for homosexual love here is sparse at best”_ \- may I direct you to Tayyib 2015, Prince-Bythewood 2014, and at the very least Smith & Jones 1999, to start educating yourself on this topic?

Furthermore, I do not feel further elaboration on conceptualizations of the soul were necessary - not only does this contradict your other comment about being “overlong”, but more importantly this is not an Introduction to Philosophy course. I did read the two citations you noted (for purely selfless and unbiased reasons, I’m sure) and have actually chosen to include one - though I am only referencing it in order to explicitly contradict its entire premise.

Regarding your comments about vague assertions and disagreeing with me - why, thank you so much kind reviewer, for those very insightful and helpful and not-at-all vague comments! I look forward to guessing what changes I should make to rectify them. Perhaps in cases like this, verbosity has its benefits.

Finally, to respond to your comment that _“In general, the paper is overlong, very verbose, and contains unnecessary repetition.”_ \- honestly, by this point? TL;DR.

 ** _Response to Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you for sharing those citations, they were indeed helpful! I have included numerous references to them throughout the revision.

I look forward to (some of) the reviews of this revised manuscript.

Warmest regards,  
[author name redacted]

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] September 25, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-17-1066-R1 - Paper accepted

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1066-R1  
**Title:** “The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "“The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature" has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

The Editorial Board will send you further details, including a journal publishing agreement form and page proofs of your article, in due course.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS (AND EDITOR, if indicated):

 ** _Reviewer #1:_**  
The revised section on the mortality/immortality paradox was a wonderful addition. I have no further comments to note, I think this paper is ready for publication.

 ** _Reviewer #2:_**  
Thank you for your concerns about the personal issues I mentioned; I did not offer it as an excuse, but merely a reason that my review may not have been of the calibre I usually expect from myself. I would hope a fellow academic would be understanding of certain stressors we might face, such as an international move to a new institution, but no matter. I am pleased to say that those distractions have mostly resolved themselves and I can now devote my full attention to this revision.

I will not focus on the fact that you did not include my prior suggestions in your revision; in fact, perhaps it is for the best as now I am able to revisit the entire work in a relatively unaltered manner once again, which only serves to convince me that I did not misinterpret your initial manuscript so much as I simply do not agree with the points you made. In fact, perhaps it is you who has misinterpreted something that I had noted - namely, my comment about homosexual love. The idea that I read through a “heteronormative and Eurocentric lens” is quite amusing, and if you were to know me personally in the world beyond this correspondence you would know how wrong you are. I am well versed in the literature on queer studies and homoeroticism in ancient Arabic poetry; I was not born yesterday. My comment was referring to the lack of specific evidence actually being cited in your own paper. You are likely well aware that in general this field is full of more, shall we say, traditional interpretations? I was merely anticipating some critiques that you were likely to receive. Clearly your provision of those papers to me shows your awareness of them, so perhaps you should have cited them in the first place? That seems like a sin of omission.

That being said, I still feel this paper suffers from a lack of a truly compelling argument for the symbolism of the soul being directed in a romantic fashion towards a mortal rather than a spiritual subject. I do understand how authors may become locked into a certain interpretation however, and while normally I would enjoy taking the time and effort to convince you of the errors of your ways, I am afraid this is neither the time nor the place. This is generating a few ideas in my mind for a rebuttal paper, so perhaps that will be the arena where I will be able to convince you.

I am curious as to how closely you read the works I suggested in my original peer review, for your interpretation of Di Genova 2016 is clearly incorrect. Additionally, please note that you incorrectly spelled his last name - there is a space between Di and Genova. I am sure that was merely an oversight on your part.

And indeed, I suppose I have no choice but to concede to your point about verbosity sometimes being useful and that some of my original comments may have been vague. Now that I have more time for a thorough reading of this paper, I am happy to provide the following list of specific suggestions that I am sure will help to improve this paper:  
Line 2: inserting a comma between clauses would help this sentence read more easily.  
Line 5: citation needed.  
Lines 8-9: your word choice here is somewhat ambiguous; might I suggest ‘incurable’ instead of ‘hopeless’?  
Lines 13-16: how did you come to land on this definition of ‘destiny’? Please clarify.  
Line 25: citation needed.  
Line 27: citation needed.  
Line 30: citation needed.  
...  
_[NOTE: the reviewer’s comments have exceeded the word limit allowed in the automatic emails generated by the editorial system. Please log into the online editorial system to see the full reviewer submission,]_

 ** _Reviewer #3:_**  
Very good revisions, I think they clarified the points on emotionality/rationality quite well. Recommending this paper for publication.

**_Editors’ comments:_** Please note that while not all reviewers were in agreement, the editorial decision has been made to publish this work.

[ **From** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **Date** :] September 25, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Response to reviewer for JMS-D-17-1066-R1?

Hello Dr. Copley,

I am writing regarding my recently accepted manuscript, reference #JMS-D-17-1066-R1. I attempted to enter the editorial portal to submit comments back to the reviewers (or rather, one reviewer in particular) once again but it appears the portal has closed now that the paper’s status has changed to ‘accepted’. I need to submit a further response to Reviewer #2, would this be possible? I understand the need to maintain the blinding of your peer reviewers, of course - and I am not asking you to reveal their identity, but rather to facilitate sending a letter to them. The reviewer in question provided some feedback on my revised manuscript that I feel strongly requires a response.

Thank you for your time, I hope you will consider my request.

Warmest regards,  
Yusuf Al-Kaysani, PhD  
_Associate Professor, Department of the Arts  
Faculty of Humanities, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] September 26, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Response to reviewer for JMS-D-17-1066-R1?

Hello Dr. Al-Kaysani,

I must admit that I was quite surprised by your request - in my years of editing this journal, nobody has ever requested to continue correspondence with their peer reviewers following a successful editorial decision. While I appreciate the merit of vigorous academic debate, I am afraid I will have to deny your request. Our current policies do not allow for this, and were I to make an exception I feel it may set a bad precedent. If I may suggest directing your attentions towards finalizing the publishing agreement and proofs of your accepted article?

Congratulations on the successful submission of your work, I look forward to seeing it published soon.

Again, thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] October 30, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Online publication notice for JMS-D-17-1066-R1

 **Article Title:** “The moon when I am lost in darkness”: Emotions of the Soul in Ancient Islamicate Literature  
**Journal Title:** Journal of Medieval Studies  
**Author(s):** Dr. Yusuf Al-Kaysani  
**Online publication complete:** 30-OCT-2017

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

The final corrections to your proof have been made. Further corrections cannot be made. Your article is now published online at: http://dx.doi.org/17.1066/j.medistud.2017.10.30

Please note access to the full text of this article will depend on your personal or institutional entitlements.

This article can already be cited using the year of online availability and the DOI. You will be automatically notified by email once the full bibliographic details are available.

To track the status of your article throughout the publication process, please use our article tracking service via the online editorial system at https://editorialsys.com/jms.

 _Journal of Medieval Studies_ Author Support

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> Some of the comments were lovingly inspired by ‘Shit My Reviewers Say’, a collection of some truly eye-roll-inducing comments from peer reviewers. The whole concept of ‘Reviewer #2’ is actually a sort of academic inside-joke - this is the reviewer who is grumpy, aggressive, dismissive of others’ work, belligerent, etc. (Somehow it always ends up being the second reviewer.) 
> 
> Now, is our dear Reviewer #2 above actually that smug, self-assured jackass or was he just having a bad day? I’m sure there’s some sort of backstory behind all this… 
> 
> Anyway. I hope you’re enjoying this so far - please let me know by clicking that little Kudos button, or even better, leave a comment! We all need that external validation in these strange times. And by ‘we’, I clearly mean ME. 😘


	2. Beyond measure and reason

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] October 13, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-17-1069

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1069  
**Title:** “Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your submission entitled "“Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-17-1069 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] October 29, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-17-1069 - Revision request

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1069  
**Title:** “Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your paper has now been assessed by the assigned peer reviewers. Whilst the paper is basically acceptable for publication there are a number of points raised via the peer review process which we feel require clarification before we can proceed. I am appending the reviewer comments below for your attention.

I must stress that each comment should be considered and it would be very useful if you could detail, in a covering letter submitted together with your revised manuscript, how you have answered each point.

To submit a revision, please go to https://editorialsys.com/jms and login as an Author. You will find your submission record there.

Please return to the Journal of Medieval Studies within 45 days.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS:

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
Fascinating body vs soul debate. The thematic division into categories of the Soul arguing against the Body from a position of moral superiority and the Soul sharing guilt with the Body, then tying that into an examination of God as the target of the Soul’s (i.e. the author’s) grief, made for a unique examination.

The conflict between the Body and Soul re: a lack of moral guidance (lines 166-187), and the symbolism of romance with the soul portrayed as a betrayed lover, is an interesting juxtaposition to your thesis statement of a deity as the subject/object of poetic devotion.

The section on theological orthodoxy (pgs. 4-5) was well laid out. Further elaboration on the Platonic views may be useful?

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
When this review request landed in my inbox and I saw the title of this paper I was originally very excited to review this work, since the topic is very much one that piques my interest. That excitement was, unfortunately, short-lived. High was my expectation, and so much deeper was my disappointment.

On the surface this reads as rational interpretation of the selected works - but upon a deeper examination, that rationality becomes problematic. It is as if you were subjugating those works to cruel, clinical study under a microscope, as if you were vivisecting them to carve out solely the pieces you needed, to then lay them out on a cold slab to make your entirely uninspiring argument. How can one take, from these beautifully woven words, such a purely logical interpretation? Where is the emotion? It is as if all feelings were stripped from the original works! You write of interpretations of the soul, and the original authors bore theirs; ironically, what results here feels entirely soulless. I have to say that I feel their intentions have been grossly misinterpreted.

I hardly know where to begin! You describe the symbolism of a betrayed lover (lines 179-184), you describe the symbolism of a soul’s battle against an unkillable enemy (lines 224-231), but I see no evidence of a supernatural direction to the original words. There may be existential quandaries behind those words, but why is your assumption that the gaze of the Soul is towards God and not towards man? For instance, the stanza _“...Why, wretched body, did you love that foe – that is the devil? Why did you believe in him who seduced you with the pleasures of sin?”_ (lines 299-301) - the use of rhetorical questions here, directed towards the self, more clearly indicates an internal conflict - i.e. forbidden love. I think it is more likely that these conflicts may be precipitated by God and therefore the poet is exercising their angst on the mortal plane rather than the immortal one.

Indeed, your final conclusion of the causality between love for God leading to the perfection of the soul is underdeveloped and, I think, rather paradoxical when taking into account some of the supporting works you cited throughout (lines 122-134, lines 188-195, lines 301-308…) - with the philosophical milieu of that time arguing for love resulting from unity amongst the elements, it is surprising to me that you claim evidence of unity and directionality towards God when I believe they are more likely indications of conflict. I would argue that the Body versus Soul dialogue and the ‘enemy and lover’ dynamic portrayed within are a contradiction to your argument. Yes, the more intense the love then the more intense the passion, but it is the subject and direction of that passion that I’m afraid we simply must disagree on. It is a shame that said passion could not have come across more in this work.

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
A very thoroughly researched paper, the timeline of shifting epistemological thought and the evolution of ideas is laid out rationally and concisely. I appreciated the contrasting of various doctrines.

The section on spiritualistic versus materialistic positions was quite interesting, though perhaps could have used additional support? While Aristotelian theory was covered well, various interpretations of his works across the medieval landscape could use elaboration (see Currie 1995 and Lee 1986 for examples).

As per the rabbinic authorities’ notion of love for God as man’s authentic objective, the argument through the various poetic examples of souls loving God and thus pursuing their true objective of perfecting themselves - thereby obtaining immortality and happiness - was a particularly interesting conclusion.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] November 8, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for Revised Manuscript - JMS-D-17-1069-R1

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1069-R1  
**Title:** “Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your revised manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies. It will be returned to the previously assigned peer reviewers for their feedback.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

📎 ATTACHED COVER LETTER - RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (JMS-D-17-1069-R1 cover letter.docx):

To the Journal of Medieval Studies Editorial Board,  
I very much appreciate you facilitating the feedback for my recent manuscript (reference number JMS-D-17-1069). I have revised and resubmitted the manuscript, taking into account the reviewer comments. I have included specific responses to the reviewers in this cover letter:

**_Response to Reviewer #1:_**  
Thank you for your review, I am pleased you found this a unique contribution to the literature. Upon a rereading of the section on theological orthodoxy, I think I may have seen your point as to further elaboration needed on the Platonic views. I have reworked that section; upon your rereading of this revision, please let me know if I have succeeded in strengthening my argument.

**_Response to Reviewer #2:_**  
If I were to begin this response with a thank you (however insincere), would that be including enough of the emotion you seem to think is lacking in my submission? I am struggling to understand how calling interpretation of the literature ‘rational’ can be a valid critique. A scholarly paper is about laying out a cogent argument, and I feel that is precisely what I have done. I am an academic, not a poet - I will leave the emotionality to them.

Now if your issue is one of actual literary interpretation, that is something I will engage with you on. I am confident in my interpretations - and you will note from my thorough citations that I am not alone in making them. Perhaps I would be more willing to consider your counter-argument if you were to provide some supporting research behind what only seems to be your opinion? Instead I have left the sections you mentioned exactly as they were; if you are to re-review this submission and wish to provide comments that are more substantive, I would be happy to reconsider.

Finally, you end your review with another mention of passion. I must admit, your review was quite impassioned - perhaps overly so. Are you sure you are not being too emotional? (And no, that is not a rhetorical question.) I worry your sentiments may be clouding you from bringing some much-needed rationality to your review.

**_Response to Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you for your kind words. I am pleased you appreciated the inclusion of various doctrines; I try to be inclusive in the theological viewpoints I incorporate in my papers.

Your comment on my coverage of Aristotelian theory was well taken; I explored the citations you suggested and have added them, along with others, to that section. I hope that addresses your concerns there.

I am eager to see what additional comments will be made about this revision.

Best wishes,  
[author name redacted]

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] November 22, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-17-1069-R1 - Paper accepted

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-17-1069-R1  
**Title:** “Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "“Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works" has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

The Editorial Board will send you further details, including a journal publishing agreement form and page proofs of your article, in due course.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS (AND EDITOR, if indicated):

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
The additions to the section on Platonic views are satisfactory. Thank you for taking my suggestion into account, I feel it improved upon the original submission. I have no further comments to make, I am recommending this work as acceptable for publication.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that you would believe emotion has no place in an academic paper; I gathered that much from your writing thus far. I will not attempt to turn this into a debate on rationality versus emotion (though I’m sure you would have some astonishingly incorrect opinions on this as well). Instead, if substantive comments are what you desire, who am I to deny you? I will even provide them together with a healthy dash of the ‘emotionality’ you seem to be so dismissive of, simply to prove to you that the two can co-exist. Are you ready? Let’s begin!

First of all, your section on Aristotelian positions appears to be missing some of the varied interpretations of the time - see Rose 2015 if you need a clearer overview of the spiritualistic versus materialistic debate. In particular, the Arabic readings of Aristotle’s theories discuss an entirely different point of view regarding the theory of knowledge and divine nature, providing a point contradictory to the Christian doctrine of punishment and reward and the notion of the individuality of the soul as a pre-condition for moral responsibility. I feel (yes, I am still using that word - perhaps my emotions getting the better of me again!) that the theological and philosophical debates regarding the dogmatic formulations defining the orthodox positions are overlooked here.

I feel (oh no, there it is again - don’t worry, I will back it up with support this time!) that it is this oversight that leads to the lack of a truly persuasive argument here. You talk of philosophical and theological portrayals of the soul, but if you are applying the perspective of the soul as a ‘rational’ entity whereby it ‘enlightens’ man to better understand the truth of a deity, then in this context the soul cannot be analysed separately from the body. Rather, individuals would need to be examined as complex physical, spiritual, and yes, EMOTIONAL wholes (see Sands 1999 and Mullens 2002 if you need to be convinced by other parties) - which brings us back to the need to consider emotion. Tell me, do you truly not feel the emotion in any of the following?

Lines 122-124: _“...my allegiance to earthly things / chains my soul to the ground / and to you”_ \- pray tell, how does one interpret this in precisely the opposite way to which it was clearly meant?

Lines 179-180: _“...a betrayal harder to endure than death / a love vanish’d and left barren / only in the chambr of mine mind”_ \- do you not feel the anguish and despair in these words? Moreover, the mention of death is in direct opposition to your argument around the immortality of the soul. It is more likely these words speak of a mortal betrayal rather than a spiritual one.

Lines 188-90: _“...the distraction of my senses / the perversion of my reason / to change my wisdom to foolishness / in my pursuit of you…”_ \- the entirety of this poem is purely carnal and lustful, and I would argue that the poet is actually contemplating the alienation of his soul in a direction away from his God. Again, I find myself almost amused at how diametrically opposed our interpretations happen to be.

Lines 200-205: your point here is muddled. Are you basing this on the words of Albany 2014 or Jitney & Canyon 2013? If so, at the very least cite them - but better yet, I recommend rereading those works because they make your point better than you have here.

Lines 227-230: _“...my soul is the unkillable enemy / invulnerable in battle / only to rise again when dealt / the mortal wound”_ \- these lines are better interpreted as an internal battle of virtues and vices, no? See Butani 1990 for an overview of the internal struggle in various medieval-era lamentations.

Lines 301-305: I notice you cited DiGenova 2016 here - I do not think that article provides the support you think it does. Perhaps I might direct you to a recently published article, Al-Kaysani 2017, that I recommend you read to broaden your horizons on this topic.

Lines: 306-308: _“...the mystic moment when / two souls meet / achieving a perfect harmony / to be deemed destiny.”_ \- again, the utter passion and ardour being evoked here, it is utterly baffling to me tha-  
_[NOTE: the reviewer’s comments have exceeded the word limit allowed in the automatic emails generated by the editorial system. Please log into the online editorial system to see the full reviewer submission.]_

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
The reworking of the Aristotelian section was very well done, it reads clearer now. I noticed some other changes to the original manuscript when discussing Platonic views; I think that section too is improved, though might I suggest adding additional references to Brewer 1998 and Budd 2001? I feel those would provide even further elaboration.

Other than that minor suggestion, I have no further critiques. I recommend this paper for publication.

**_Editors’ comments:_** Please note that while not all reviewers were in agreement, the editorial decision has been made to publish this work.

[ **From** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **Date** :] November 22, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Is it possible to respond to a reviewer for JMS-D-17-1069-R1?

Dear Dr. Copley,

I have just received the reviewer comments to my revision of manuscript number JMS-D-17-1069-R1. There is one comment in particular that I desire to respond to, but when I attempted to do so via the online editorial portal I was not able to submit any further letters.

This may be an unusual request, but would it be possible for you to forward a letter containing a response to Reviewer #2?

Thank you for your time, I hope you will consider my request.

Best wishes,  
Nicolo Di Genova, PhD  
_Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies  
Faculty of Social Sciences, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] November 23, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Is it possible to respond to a reviewer for JMS-D-17-1069-R1?

Hello Dr. Di Genova,

Your request is quite surprising to me. In my years of editing this journal, nobody had ever requested to continue the back-and-forth correspondence with their peer reviewers following a successful editorial decision - yet oddly enough, this is the second such request I have received to do so in just the past few weeks. I am afraid I will have to tell you the same thing I told your colleague - that while I appreciate the merit of vigorous academic debate, our policies require me to deny your request. If I may suggest directing your attention towards finalizing the publishing agreement and proofs of your accepted article?

Congratulations on the successful submission of your work, I look forward to seeing it published soon.

Again, thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] December 15, 2017  
[ **Subject** :] Online publication notice for JMS-D-17-1069-R1

**Article Title:** “Beyond measure and reason”: Theological and philosophical interpretations of the soul in Medieval works  
**Journal Title:** Journal of Medieval Studies  
**Author(s):** Dr. Nicolo Di Genova  
**Online publication complete:** 15-DEC-2017

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

The final corrections to your proof have been made. Further corrections cannot be made. Your article is now published online at: http://dx.doi.org/17.1069/j.medistud.2017.12.15

Please note access to the full text of this article will depend on your personal or institutional entitlements.

This article can already be cited using the year of online availability and the DOI. You will be automatically notified by email once the full bibliographic details are available.

To track the status of your article throughout the publication process, please use our article tracking service via the online editorial system at https://editorialsys.com/jms.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Author Support

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> For those keeners out there, the author citations I’m inserting into the reviewer comments are all fake, but I’m playing within a theme with each chapter. Gold stars for those of you who guess where each author’s names are from correctly! Feel free to drop your guesses in the comments. 
> 
> As usual, let me end off a chapter by pleading (with total dignity, of course) for kudos and comments! They give me liiiiiiife.


	3. A fine justification

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] January 4, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-18-0017

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0017  
**Title:** “A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your submission entitled "“A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-18-0017 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] January 25, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0017 - Revision request

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0017  
**Title:** “A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your paper has now been assessed by the assigned peer reviewers. Whilst the paper is basically acceptable for publication there are a number of points raised via the peer review process which we feel require clarification before we can proceed. I am appending the reviewer comments below for your attention.

I must stress that each comment should be considered and it would be very useful if you could detail, in a covering letter submitted together with your revised manuscript, how you have answered each point.

To submit a revision, please go to https://editorialsys.com/jms and login as an Author. You will find your submission record there.

Please return to the Journal of Medieval Studies within 45 days.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS:

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
A solid examination of different attitudes towards the crusading movement, especially around the era’s contrasting ideas between clergy and laity regarding justification for the war. The gulf between theologians and the public is central here, and while I feel the author has outlined various theological views (i.e. justification of force, weight of authorities, love of enemies) quite comprehensively, as well as the efforts of the clergy to bridge that gap, I would suggest elaborating upon the laic aspect.

The basic arguments around moral imperatives (pgs. 2-3) and the Augustinian view of recognizing sacred violence are sufficiently described, though I feel additional citations could be added to elaborate more on St Augustine’s (restricted) notions on free will? - particularly in contrast to the ideas of free will in the central Middle Ages. Intentionality is key here, and with Augustine maintaining that the right intention should be motivated by love, a linkage to the courtly love of crusading poems then discussed could be strengthened.

Finally, a brief comment re: the section on page 5 around the expression of emotions of mourning and loss in courtly love songs and classic laments - I do feel the flow of the paper somewhat lapsed here. While the discussion around ethical and moral viewpoints is well done, it seems the author’s particular area of expertise leans more towards philosophy and theology rather than poetic interpretation. I might suggest engaging a co-author with a more literary background to complement what is clearly a very knowledgeable analysis of the medieval era.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
I have to admit (with a gun pressed to my head) that your overarching thesis of crusade poems blurring the boundaries between exhortation and departure poems as a means of propaganda to support crusading ideology is an intriguing one. However, I have numerous points of contention that I simply cannot remain silent on.

My major issue here is a question of what defines a ‘legitimate’ crusade poem. The field tends to divide crusade poetry into the categories of exhortational poems (urging men to take up the cross, criticizing those who fail to do so) and departure songs (lamentations and anguish for loved ones the crusader leaves behind), as per Ludgate 2000. It is not made clear in your paper what your criteria for inclusion was. And perhaps it does not matter if you are arguing that the emotional and erotic themes are equally strong amongst them both, but then this point needs to be made much clearer (and with more emotion!). While these poems may not have been written with deliberate intent to motivate others to take up the cross, they nevertheless supported crusading ideology by enhancing the virile and romanticized image of the crusader.

This idealized image of the crusader, the portrayal of a crusader as lover, is veering perilously close to over-romanticizing and eroticizing the crusades. There is distancing of an exoticized enemy, treated as an amalgamated ‘Other’, due to an overreliance on a European and Christian canon - where is, for instance, the MENA perspective? The narrow representation of a singular point of view tiptoes perilously close to the propaganda that you discuss in the article.

In lines 188-192, you discuss the common theme of a subordinate eulogizing a lost patron. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I must correct your terminology here - you refer to it as an ode, though it is actually more of an elegy. I will leave it up to you to look up the definitions of each term, I don’t want to be doing all your work for you.

Similarly, your lack of poetic expertise is showing when you discuss the symbolism of the lion as representing courage, power, and justice as traits valued by the Templar knight. No mention of the didactic messaging relating to authority, of a lion’s courage and devotion also symbolising Christ? The fact that you missed this obvious interpretation of poetic symbolism makes me wary of the rest of your paper.

Overall, beyond literary naïveté and the overly-narrow lens through which you are viewing an exceedingly complex era, it seems there is a layer of context missing here. Clearly the relationship between theology, propaganda, and public opinion was a complicated one - but what of any interplay? The clergy modified theology for popular consumption, but they too were influenced by the public they were addressing. Swanson (1960) suggests vernacular literature reflected the crusading ideals expressed by popes, but the bidirectionality of how popes came to be swayed by popular ideas is not discussed. An acknowledgment of the intertwining effects of medieval intellectuals, scholars, popes, and priests, and how there likely were mediating effects between them to temper one overarching set of beliefs and assumptions, would be valuable.

Without these major revisions, I fear this well-respected journal would be dangerously lowering their standards if they were to publish this.

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
Very interesting contribution to the body of work around crusading theology. I was intrigued by your description of an “identity grounded in ethical sacrifice” (line 99) as a description for some crusaders, ready to give up all dear to them - including sacrificing one’s own life on the long journey overseas - to serve God. Good evidence cited to link that to the preaching and sermons urging the faithful to embrace their own deaths as a debt owed to God, as the best form of love they could bestow upon Him. Perhaps this could further be supported by additional works - Wyatt 2001 and Traeger 1999 come to mind.

You end with some intriguing food for thought with your argument on pg. 7, of the poet seeing crusading as undertaking a type of penance for the pleasures previously enjoyed - the implication being that those pleasures were of a sinful nature? - this is a fascinating juxtaposition to the exemplars of courtly love and lamentations cited throughout, but I feel it needs more support. I would very much like to see more content around this idea of redemption (or possibly guilt?) as (attempted) justification.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 11, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for Revised Manuscript - JMS-D-18-0017-R1

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0017-R1  
**Title:** “A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your revised manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies. It will be returned to the previously assigned peer reviewers for their feedback.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

📎 ATTACHED COVER LETTER - RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (JMS-D-18-0017-R1 cover letter.docx):

To the Journal of Medieval Studies Editorial Board,  
I appreciate you facilitating the feedback for my most recent manuscript (reference number JMS-D-18-0017). I have revised and resubmitted the manuscript taking into account the reviewer comments. My responses to the reviewers can be found in this cover letter:

**_Response to Reviewer #1:_**  
Thank you for your review. Your first suggestion regarding elaboration of the laic perspective was noted; it was difficult to find existing literature focusing on that point of view, but I believe I was able to find enough that the arguments made now have more evidentiary support. Your second point regarding St. Augustine’s conceptualizations of free will have also been supported with additional citations.

Regarding your final observation, around possibly finding a co-author with expertise on medieval literature and poetry - your suggestion has been noted.

**_Response to Reviewer #2:_**  
I will take your reluctant compliment, gun to your head or not - though I do disagree with the majority of the other points you made. So perhaps you should have remained silent (though I suspect that is a serious problem for you).

I am indeed aware of the general division of the corpus of crusade poems into exhortational and departure works. As I wrote, the boundaries between the two are blurred when the crusaders expressed ambivalence about the penitential aspect of crusading through the courtly code and their voices articulated increasingly secular ideals. It seems like you acknowledged this point, so I am unsure of why you wasted your time to make note of it, other than to include an unnecessary plea for more emotion. This reminds me of a comment I received on another paper I recently submitted, and I reiterate what I told that reviewer - that I am academic, not a poet. I will leave the emotion to reside in the poems I have copiously quoted, and I will focus on the scholastic arguments.

I also feel vaguely insulted that you are implying I am romanticizing the crusader. I assure you that I am not some member of the old guard of medieval historians, some zealot spouting nonsense of defending the western canon. Yes, this paper focuses on European and Christian literature - specifically French, if you wish to critique that as well - for two main reasons: 1) that is the largest corpus of evidence in existence from which I could draw my arguments, and 2) I was already at the maximum word limit for this journal and could not find room to add a MENA perspective. If you feel so strongly about this, by all means, you are welcome to address it yourself - you do not seem to be short of words.

Re: lines 188-192, I must object to your classification of this as an elegy. It is presumptuous that you think I did not do my research on this beforehand, and I direct you to Knope 1995 where I think you will find a definition that supports what I have written.

Finally, your comment about the interplay between the different audiences is a baffling one to me. This is already discussed throughout the paper, the fact that you missed this obvious interpretation makes me wary of your critique of my paper.

As I reach the end of this response, I realize I should correct myself where I noted above that “I do disagree with the majority of the other points you made”. This was a mistake - I clearly disagree with ALL of the points you made. My sincerest apologies for this error.

**_Response to Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you very much for your comments. I read the works you mentioned and I agree that they were very much related to my argument; I have included them as additional citations. I have also expanded upon the notion of guilt and redemption, I appreciate the suggestion.

I look forward to the reviewers’ response to this revision.

Best wishes,  
[author name redacted]

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] March 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0017-R1 - Paper accepted

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0017-R1  
**Title:** “A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "“A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments" has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

The Editorial Board will send you further details, including a journal publishing agreement form and page proofs of your article, in due course.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS (AND EDITOR, if indicated):

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
I am glad you attempted to find additional literature on the laic POV - I agree it is a difficult area to delve into and I apologize that I couldn’t be of help in providing specific sources, but what you were able to find did indeed address my concerns and I feel your paper is stronger for it. The same goes for the elaboration on Augustine’s free will arguments.

I hope my comment around enlisting a co-author with more of a background in literature was not out of line; I didn't mean to imply that your article required some sort of credential boost. It was already well done, so I am recommending it be accepted for publication.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
I apologize for you feeling vaguely insulted by my last review. I was indeed insulting you, so clearly I did not do a good enough job if the impression only came across as vague.

You responded that I appear to have difficulty remaining silent - yes, being silent in the face of such astonishingly incorrect takes is indeed difficult for me. I have in fact already started my own rebuttal paper, and I feel compelled to let you know that I started it weeks ago, after receiving the first draft of your paper (I would not want you to think I required you to suggest it). So not only will I save my arguments for my own manuscript, but seeing as you will likely once again disagree with everything I would say here and implement exactly none of my suggestions, I am going to save us both some time and simply note down only what cannot in any way be disputed:

This paper is written.

That is all.

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
The reworking of the section on redemption/guilt is more than satisfactory, it strengthens the paper greatly. No additional comments on my end, I am recommending this work for publication with no further revisions.

**_Editors’ comments:_** Please note that while not all reviewers were in agreement, the editorial decision has been made to publish this work.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] March 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

I felt I should take this rather unusual step and preemptively reach out to you before another request to pass along a response to one of the reviewers lands in my inbox. (If I am wrong in assuming that you were about to make such a request again, I apologize.)

I have noticed an uncommon level of animosity in your responses to your reviewers (or rather, one reviewer in particular). I am writing to ask if you would please do your best to keep your interactions civil. I will also direct you to the Journal of Medieval Studies’ Reviewer Guidelines \- specifically, to the section on reviewer ethics and our harassment policy.

In fairness, I have also sent a similar request to the reviewer you seem to have this friction with. I trust you will both try and remain more professional in the future.

Again, thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

[ **From** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **Date** :] March 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dr. Copley,  
I apologize if my response to the reviewer in question came across as unprofessional. I had thought our interaction had been fairly civil; or perhaps I was simply interpreting it as civil in comparison to what it would have been in person.

I have to admit that I have my suspicions as to who this reviewer might be. Might I suggest your journal implement an option in the article submission process to _exclude_ potential reviewers? I feel like this would help to avoid such issues in the future.

Best wishes,  
Nicolo Di Genova, PhD  
_Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies  
Faculty of Social Sciences, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] April 2, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Online publication notice for JMS-D-18-0017-R1

**Article Title:** “A fine justification”: Ethics and morality in Crusade Laments  
**Journal Title:** Journal of Medieval Studies  
**Author(s):** Dr. Nicolo Di Genova  
**Online publication complete:** 02-APR-2018

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

The final corrections to your proof have been made. Further corrections cannot be made. Your article is now published online at: http://dx.doi.org/18.0017/j.medistud.2018.04.02 

Please note access to the full text of this article will depend on your personal or institutional entitlements.

This article can already be cited using the year of online availability and the DOI. You will be automatically notified by email once the full bibliographic details are available.

To track the status of your article throughout the publication process, please use our article tracking service via the online editorial system at https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Yours sincerely,  
_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Author Support

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> I find the idea of Joe and Nicky, holed up in their tiny university offices late at night, just utterly seething as they determinedly scour through obscure texts so they can rip each other to shreds via academic discourse (diss-course!), endlessly amusing. Hopefully I’m not the only one! If you’re enjoying things so far, please let me know via comments and kudos. 😁


	4. The kindness of which this world is not worthy of

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] January 27, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-18-0019

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0019  
**Title:** “The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your submission entitled "“The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-18-0019 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

 _Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 12, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0019 - Revision request

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0019  
**Title:** “The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your paper has now been assessed by the assigned peer reviewers. Whilst the paper is basically acceptable for publication there are a number of points raised via the peer review process which we feel require clarification before we can proceed. I am appending the reviewer comments below for your attention.

I must stress that each comment should be considered and it would be very useful if you could detail, in a covering letter submitted together with your revised manuscript, how you have answered each point.

To submit a revision, please go to https://editorialsys.com/jms and login as an Author. You will find your submission record there.

Please return to the Journal of Medieval Studies within 45 days.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS:

 ** _Reviewer #1:_**  
A fascinating read, the author’s passion for the subject comes through in their loving interrogation of the selected poems. The interconnection between the sacred and the profane, the eroticization of feeling versus the ethical capacity to sacrifice one’s self willingly in submission to love, was very intriguing.

Beautiful description of the longing for a sacred beloved as representing hope and redemption, though I had some trouble following the resulting section (lines 319-332); I interpreted this as the persona of the lover, as constructed by the poet, serving to remind the audience of another land, but is this meant to be more metaphorical (in terms of an otherworldly power) or literal (in terms of homesickness and being away across the sea)? Some slight restructuring of this section could help to clarify this.

I particularly enjoyed the overview confirming the poetic voice’s identity as a lover; clearly form is as significant as content here, with the invocation of longing for one’s beloved found within the devotional poetry genre. However, might I suggest the idea of the voice of a lover as also being described as performative? Particularly when they are repeatedly constituted through poetic conventions of stylized acts (see Schmidt 2003 on the performativity of gender, for instance). This may be indicative of the prioritization of acts of service over, say, words of affirmation, which could be an interesting lens through which to consider the relative values of the love and kindness being portrayed.

 ** _Reviewer #2:_**  
I must admit up front that I am not a poet; to review this article was therefore a challenge which I accepted. I greatly regret this decision. While I am under no illusions of my skill with words, I wonder whether the same can be said for the author of this manuscript. Just because the subject of this paper is poetry does not necessarily make the author themselves a poet. I find myself distracted from the actual scholarly argument that is attempted here, buried deep beneath flowery words.

But let us get to those (attempts at) scholarly arguments then. First, I must contradict your portrayal of the body as a prison where the soul is captive, waiting to return to its love (lines 145-162). If you examine this through a Neoplatonic lens, the soul is part of the divine world, placed by God in a mortal body and yearning to return to its source - its captivity in the body is often described as exile. I think reading this exile as spiritual rather than physical is more correct, no?

Next, I am not entirely convinced of the passages you interrogate on page 4, wherein the poet’s captivity in the hands of the Byzantines is described. Your implication is that the Byzantines are plotting against Muslims in the same way that adversaries plot against lovers, and that this more realistic and historical setting is a departure from traditional poetic forms. I question whether this is truly a love poem at heart, and not merely an allegory of the political context of the time. Bishop, Furguson & Nelson 2004 discusses the inherent heroism, chivalry, and courage of epic poems, too often tied to violence, and therefore contributing to a reciprocal demonization of the Other; for instance, the Franks taking the place of the Byzantines as the subject of these poems as their looming threat grew over time.

Likewise, while your discussion of eroticized poetry in celebration of the divine and metaphors of ungendered abstraction is interesting (pg. 5), the connection you (attempt to) make between gendered speech and desire is less successful (for example, the beloved likened to celestial objects, such as the moon - line 417). Together with a reading of this poem in its historical and political context, as I mentioned above, are these metaphorical linkages to nature not primarily influenced by the practical needs of human life? For example, the metaphors of sheep and goats (lines 469-471) - I feel like the obvious interpretation here is as a desire for peaceful prosperity in a time of war and conflict.

I have been criticized for an overreliance on a single point of view in a past paper; I must now make that same criticism here. I feel the narrow focus on Arabic Crusade-era love verses is such a niche interest that the hypothesis put forward and arguments (attempted to be) made herein essentially become meaningless. I fail to see the contribution by this paper to the wider field of medieval research.

 ** _Reviewer #3:_**  
A thought-provoking work! I was particularly struck by the argument made to read the third poem aloud, making more noticeable the fact that each line ends with the same suffix meaning ‘you’ - the constant repetition truly lends an almost obsessive note, underscoring the constant presence of the subject in the mind’s eye of the poet. This omnipresence - you do not label it, but could this be indicative of a deistic or supernatural subject rather than a mortal one?

Your characterization of conventional Arabic love poetry as beyond merely celebrating love, but rather singing the praises of the personality of the lover, is quite apt. Additionally, the poetry is not merely about passion, but frustrated passion, defined by its yearning for an unmet destiny. This comes across well in your manuscript.

Finally, I wanted to make mention of the juxtaposition in the various works, between the adversaries/enemies of the poet/lover to the historical enemies of the captive/lover. This seems to be dramatizing (or idolizing?) an antagonistic nature, implying that such antagonism is inherent in love - or perhaps a precondition for it. Would you agree?

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 28, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for Revised Manuscript - JMS-D-18-0019-R1

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0019-R1  
**Title:** “The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your revised manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies. It will be returned to the previously assigned peer reviewers for their feedback.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Sincerely,  
_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

📎 ATTACHED COVER LETTER - RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (JMS-D-18-0019-R1 cover letter.docx):

To the editorial board of the Journal of Medieval Studies,  
Thank you for providing commentary from the various reviewers. I have revised the manuscript, taking into account some of their suggestions. Please see my response to those suggestions below.

 ** _Response to Reviewer #1:_**  
Thank you very much, I am glad that my passion for this topic shines through. I do not believe in the usual dry, unemotional writing all too common in academia - I believe it renders one’s arguments impotent.

I have restructured the sections you mentioned you were unclear on (lines 319-332, now see lines 319-337). Your observation of both metaphorical and literal interpretations is astute - I believe both apply, in parallels between the poet feeling far from home, far from their lover, and far from their faith. I hope this now comes across more clearly.

Your final comment about the lover’s speech as performative was some very interesting food for thought. It prompted me to reconsider the target of the poet’s words of affirmation - were they directed to the lover themselves, to a surrounding unnamed audience, or both? This raises some intriguing questions around the devotional nature of the words. I have elaborated upon this in the final section.

 ** _Response to Reviewer #2:_**  
You did not have to admit that you are not a poet, that much was obvious. The fact that you critique words and emotions for doing exactly what they are meant to, for eliciting feelings, frustrates me to no end. And then to claim I am not a poet?

> _Inflict upon me what trials you will;  
>  Banish me from your presence, though the fire of frenzy  
>  that kindles my passion remains.  
>  My heart burns with this flame,  
>  pulsing with feeling like waves on the sea.  
>  Surrounded by enemies, I am as free as the wind  
>  above the fray.  
>  I see with closed eyes the beauty that burns  
>  beyond the sand and beyond the sea,  
>  and I too dance over glass  
>  with the rhythm of battle._

...There, does that not make you feel something? Does that not elicit any sort of passion inside of you? Do not try to deny it. It is this passion that I will bring to my work, regardless of any petty criticisms.

Now, let me address your petty criticisms.

I (shockingly!) disagree with your interpretation of the referenced exile as spiritual. It is clear by the parallels drawn between the body/heart and homelands that the author is drawing on the experience of foreignness, of being a stranger in a strange land, in contrast to conventional love poems where the physical locus is a place that is known and familiar. It is that unfamiliarity, that foreignness, which emphasizes the poet’s alienation and depression.

I will grant you one very small, miniscule, microscopic point, in that you may be correct about the Franks being fashioned as the enemy, particularly as violent poetic imagery intensified with the coming of the Crusades. (I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day.) However, I am gratified to see the rest of your comment was entirely incorrect. My point was that the historical context influenced the content of the poems in terms of invoking violence, but that love was portrayed hand in hand with violence does not negate the fact that these were indeed love poems.

You seem to have your sights set on the historical and political context as the be-all and end-all, as the ultimate influence over every aspect of these poems. Yes, perhaps the mention of sheep and goats can be interpreted as a bucolic call-back amidst times of war - or perhaps they act as a moral reference, or a representation of sexual mores, or one element in a complex system of binary symbolic relationships and complementary opposites. Or perhaps the comparison of the dark hair of one’s beloved to a flock of goats streaming down a mountain is meant to be just that - a simple piece of descriptive poetic imagery. Your insistence on practicality in interpretations makes me wonder about a lack of imagination on your part. Please, do not be so literal and unromantic! Eyes are compared to the sea not due to its value as a trade route but because of its unknowable, fathomless depths; one’s beloved is compared to the moon not due to its calendrical value but because it acts as a guiding light in the darkness. Poetry requires this leap, this extrapolation to view something as outside of itself, beyond the obvious. I teach an undergraduate Intro to Poetry course - perhaps it would be beneficial for you to take it. It would certainly help to shed some light on what you call a “niche interest”. (Not to brag, but it is one of the most popular undergraduate courses at my university - I would say that is a far cry from “niche”.)

 ** _Response to Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you for your comments. Yes, I believe you must hear poetry read aloud to truly appreciate it - there is a great deal of nuance and emotion expressed in the oral tradition, I feel it does a disservice to a poem to leave it unspoken.

As for your question of the subject’s omnipresence - judging from other context cues, my interpretation is that the subject is indeed a mortal one but so ever-present in the poet’s thoughts that this imbues a sense of immortality. I have elaborated upon this point in lines 96-99.

Finally, your question around antagonism being inherent in love is a difficult one to answer. I can point to Day & Miller (2011), which discusses the rhetorical importance of the implication of meaning, wherein accurate meaning is to be found in what precedes it. In other words, there is an order to things that should be considered, in which a history and growth can be found. Because many of the selected works come from different poets, there is not necessarily any evolution of feelings to be found through the disparate works. However, in those poems from the same author, there is indeed a sense of transformation of feeling - despite an initial portrayal of hatred and rivalry, this eases over time. Whether this means that antagonism is a precondition for love, or even whether such a shift in opinion is realistic, I could not say.

I will await any further comments on this revision.

Warmest regards,  
[author name redacted]

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] March 19, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0019-R1 - Paper accepted

 **Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0019-R1  
**Title:** “The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "“The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades" has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

The Editorial Board will send you further details, including a journal publishing agreement form and page proofs of your article, in due course.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS (AND EDITOR, if indicated):

 ** _Reviewer #1:_**  
While the original manuscript was already very good, I find your revisions have strengthened it. Your restructuring of lines 319-337 does indeed help to elucidate the parallels between homesickness and lovesickness you mentioned. And your inclusion around public speeches of devotion to the discussion section was a valuable addition; I now feel that part is a standout.

An excellent paper, I have no reservations in recommending this for publication.

 ** _Reviewer #2:_**  
The poem you so lovingly inserted in your last response to reviewers is missing a proper citation.

I disagree with your disagreement on my interpretation of the exile. I too know something of foreignness and displacement, but when I think to contrast that against what is known and familiar, that does not necessarily equate with love either. I am surprised you did not spout something about love being the great equalizer across all contexts, or some such nonsense. Then again, you seem to not want to take context into account at all (despite the obvious influence it exerts)! I will content myself with knowing I am right, for it is the context around you that must be influencing your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that I may have a point.

I will decline your generous invitation to take your undergraduate poetry course. I envy the people who don’t have to deal with you, so I will not purposely put myself in that situation.

I could continue to argue with you on the insufficiencies in your manuscript but I will save my energy - I feel certain you would not take any of my suggestions to heart. Instead I will just leave you to proceed with a paper full of poorly structured arguments and inaccuracies - after all, it will not be my name going on it. While I do not wish to cast disrepute on the integrity and reputation of this fine journal, I almost hope that your paper is accepted purely for the fact that I do not want to interact with you again.

 ** _Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you for answering my question re: the subject’s omnipresence, as a reader that elaboration makes more sense now. Around my other question, about love and antagonism, I don’t know if your reply truly answered my question - though I understand that an exploration of the enemies-to-lovers motif is not the point here, so I will not harp on that.

Overall, an interesting and well-researched work. I recommend its publication.

**_Editors’ comments:_** Please note that while not all reviewers were in agreement, the editorial decision has been made to publish this work.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] March 19, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Once again I am taking this unusual step to address the level of animosity in your responses to one particular reviewer. I will reiterate my request that you PLEASE keep your tone cordial and professional.

I am again directing both you and your colleague to the Journal of Medieval Studies’ Reviewer Guidelines \- specifically, to the section on reviewer ethics and our harassment policy. You will note that there is a subsection on recusing yourself as a reviewer if you have a conflict of interest in peer reviewing a submission; this includes if you are aware of the identity of the author, as I remind you that this is meant to be a double-blinded process. I have my suspicions that you may have deduced who one of the reviewers is - I am willing to grant some leeway in this case because the pool of knowledgeable and willing reviewers in this field is extremely small, but I must warn you that my patience is wearing thin.

Again, thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

[ **From** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **Date** :] March 20, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dear Dr. Copley,

I am sorry you feel my correspondence to the offending reviewer is breaching the journal’s harassment policy. I have read over the guidelines and I feel like I have been relatively civil - or, as civil as I could have been under the circumstances. I will do my best to be kinder in the future.

Also, I paid careful attention to the guidelines on recusing oneself in cases of conflicts of interest - I have to ask, what if there is no specific conflict of interest as defined by the guidelines, but just a conflict in terms of their general existence?

I feel like if your journal submission process had the option to exclude certain reviewers then we could avoid this sort of situation. Just a friendly suggestion!

Warmest regards,  
Yusuf Al-Kaysani, PhD  
_Associate Professor, Department of the Arts  
Faculty of Humanities, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] April 30, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Online publication notice for JMS-D-18-0019-R1

 **Article Title:** “The kindness of which this world is not worthy of”: Rereading Medieval Arabic Love Verse in the Context of the Crusades  
**Journal Title:** Journal of Medieval Studies  
**Author(s):** Dr. Yusuf Al-Kaysani  
**Online publication complete:** 30-APR-2018

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

The final corrections to your proof have been made. Further corrections cannot be made. Your article is now published online at: http://dx.doi.org/18.0019/j.medistud.2018.04.30

Please note access to the full text of this article will depend on your personal or institutional entitlements.

This article can already be cited using the year of online availability and the DOI. You will be automatically notified by email once the full bibliographic details are available.

To track the status of your article throughout the publication process, please use our article tracking service via the online editorial system at https://editorialsys.com/jms.

 _Journal of Medieval Studies_ Author Support

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> The mention of sheep and goats in this chapter is a reference to this tumblr post (https://onyxbird.tumblr.com/post/634356379651637248/12th-century-yusuf-well-educated-scholar-and), one of my all-time faves. I can’t stop laughing my ass off literally every time I read it.


	5. An Interlude - Perspectives on persecution during the Crusades

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] May 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Panelist invitation for the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

As a member of the International Congress of Medieval History (ICMH) Conference Organizing Committee, I am writing to ask if you would be willing to appear as a discussant on a panel named “Perspectives on persecution during the Crusades” at the forthcoming International Congress of Medieval History conference, to be held in Valletta, Malta on July 27-30th, 2018.

The panel itself will last for 2 hours on July 28th. 

There will be 4 panelists, each to speak for 15 minutes, followed by the remaining 60 minutes for open discussion, dialogue, and audience questions.

While ICMH cannot afford to pay the travel expenses of each invited panelist, it is pleased to waive your registration fee for the conference.

I do hope you can make time in your busy schedule to attend the conference and share your ideas on this panel! Please let me know whether you can make it as soon as you can.

Regards,  
Andromache Black, PhD  
 _Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology  
Faculty of Social Sciences, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Andromache Black (a.black@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] May 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] RE: Panelist invitation for the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

Joe - sorry for the boring form email (gotta pretend to be official and all that BS). But seriously, you better drag your sorry ass to this conference! I won’t take no for an answer.

\- Andy

> _[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
> [ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
> [ **Date** :] May 1, 2018  
> [ **Subject** :] Panelist invitation for the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018  
> …  
> [Message clipped] View entire message  
> _

[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] May 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Panelist invitation for the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

As a member of the International Congress of Medieval History (ICMH) Conference Organizing Committee, I am writing to ask if you would be willing to appear as a discussant on a panel named “Perspectives on persecution during the Crusades” at the forthcoming International Congress of Medieval History conference, to be held in Valletta, Malta on July 27-30th, 2018.

The panel itself will last for 2 hours on July 28th. 

There will be 4 panelists, each to speak for 15 minutes, followed by the remaining 60 minutes for open discussion, dialogue, and audience questions.

While ICMH cannot afford to pay the travel expenses of each invited panelist, it is pleased to waive your registration fee for the conference.

I do hope you can make time in your busy schedule to attend the conference and share your ideas on this panel! Please let me know whether you can make it as soon as you can.

Regards,  
Quynh Nguyen, PhD  
 _Assistant Professor, Department of History  
Faculty of Humanities, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Quynh Nguyen (q.nguyen@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] May 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] RE: Panelist invitation for the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

Nicky, I hope you won’t ignore the panel invitation below! Aside from the fact that you desperately need a vacation, I told the organizing committee you would definitely do it. Don’t make a liar out of me please! :)

~ Quynh

> _[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
> [ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
> [ **Date** :] May 1, 2018  
> [ **Subject** :] Panelist invitation for the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018  
> …  
> [Message clipped] View entire message  
> _

[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
[ **To** :] Panel #1640 Members (group distribution list)  
[ **Date** :] July 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Details for Panel #1640 at the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

Dear invited panelist,

We are very excited about your forthcoming panel at the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018 in Malta. The audience interest has been popular beyond what we expected, and we are hoping to have a very interesting discussion!

As a reminder, your panel will take place on July 28th, 2018 at 3pm. The final room assignments will be listed in the conference program, to be circulated shortly.

The theme of this panel is **“Perspectives on persecution during the Crusades”**.

The **full list of panelists** taking part is:

  * Dr. Yusuf Al-Kaysani, PhD - an art historian and literature expert, with a particular focus on medieval Islamicate art and poetry.
  * Dr. Nicolo Di Genova, PhD - a religious studies scholar, with a background in comparative ethics and philosophy.
  * Dr. Steven Merrick, PhD - an archaeologist specializing in European history, with a focus on warfare and conflict studies.
  * Dr. Meta Kozak, PhD - a philosopher whose research focuses on ethics and morality, particularly through a historical lens.



The panel will be chaired by Dr. Quynh Nguyen, a historian specializing in religion and persecution.

With many thanks,  
The International Congress of Medieval History Conference Organizing Committee

[ **From** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Dr. Andromache Black (a.black@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] July 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] RE: Details for Panel #1640 at the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

You did this on purpose, didn’t you?!!? You PLANNED this. How DARE you, Andromache??? THE BETRAYAL!!!!!!!!!

> _[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
> [ **To** :] Panel#1640 Members (group distribution list)  
> [ **Date** :] July 1, 2018  
> [ **Subject** :] Details for Panel #1640 at the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018  
> …  
> [Message clipped] View entire message  
> _

[ **From** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Dr. Quynh Nguyen (q.nguyen@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] July 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] RE: Details for Panel #1640 at the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018

Quynh, you better sleep with one eye open.

> _[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
> [ **To** :] Panel#1640 Members (group distribution list)  
> [ **Date** :] July 1, 2018  
> [ **Subject** :] Details for Panel #1640 at the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018  
> …  
> [Message clipped] View entire message  
> _

[ **From** :] ICMH Conference Organizing Committee (conferencecom@icmh.org)  
[ **To** :] ICMH Membership List (group distribution list)  
[ **Date** :] September 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018 Conference Proceedings are now online

Proceedings of the International Congress of Medieval History Conference 2018. _Journal of Medieval Studies_ , Volume 36, Issue 3, pg. 587-599.

**PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF MEDIEVAL HISTORY CONFERENCE 2018**

**Panel Summaries**

…

**_Panel #1640: Perspectives on persecution during the Crusades_ **

A panel discussion with the theme “Perspectives on persecution during the Crusades” was planned to explore various perspectives on the Crusades, from both a victim and perpetrator point of view, through multidisciplinary evidence across art, literature, archaeological finds, and other historical records. Participants were a diverse group of academics with expertise across the fields of history, religion, philosophy, ethics, literature, and archaeology.

[ _Editor’s note_ : we are unable to provide a proper summary of this panel due to the rather heated nature of the discussion that occurred (and the resulting melee). The organizers apologize to those in the audience who were offended by the profanity. Because of the rather abrupt ending to this panel, attendees will be issued a partial refund of their conference fees for the inconvenience. Please contact the Organizing Committee for further details.]

…

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> Hmmm, I wonder what happened in Malta… 🤔😅


	6. Incurable romantics

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] September 21, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-18-0066

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0066  
**Title:** Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your submission entitled “Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-18-0066 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] October 13, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0066 - Revision request

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0066  
**Title:** Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your paper has now been assessed by the assigned peer reviewers. Whilst the paper is basically acceptable for publication there are a number of points raised via the peer review process which we feel require clarification before we can proceed. I am appending the reviewer comments below for your attention.

I must stress that each comment should be considered and it would be very useful if you could detail, in a covering letter submitted together with your revised manuscript, how you have answered each point.

To submit a revision, please go to https://editorialsys.com/jms and login as an Author. You will find your submission record there.

Please return to the Journal of Medieval Studies within 45 days.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS:

**_Reviewer #1:_ **

An inspired paper! Very thorough appraisal of classical genres and structures. I thought the comparing and contrasting of forms, in attracting a listener’s attention to the lover through description of services and actions versus elegifying them in terms of qualities and legacies, was particularly well laid out. 

I wonder - while the creativity and erudite nature of the selected works is quite clear, particularly with the use of allusion and double entendre, I know there has historically been critique of this burgeoning use of rhetorical devices. Might it not threaten to choke poetic spontaneity?

The discussion of how the manifestations of the leitmotifs of darkness and light relate to each other throughout the works was very well done; the light/dark, sun/moon, lover/enemy contrasts were very insightful.

Finally, a minor point - I did notice some typos on lines 400, 436, 470, and 487. I am assuming they were just a result of distraction and did not impede my reading of this manuscript at all. I’m sure the author would have caught them on their next re-read, but I thought I would mention them.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript; the author’s passion in the subject matter comes through very clearly in his words. The themes of forgiveness and cruelty of the beloved were interrogated particularly well.

Fascinating point made on page 4, where the relation between lines 200-204 and 212-117 illustrates the nature of the moral and amoral world, and being at the mercy of fate and destiny. The moral necessity triumphs, life is restored, the hero is resuscitated - in this way there is a sense that death itself was overcome. Maybe I am reading too much into the parallels, but this might be an area to clarify, perhaps to further explain that sense of immortality.

Your contrasting of elegies very clearly outlines the complex emotions of grief and a broken heart through time-tested cultural forms, central to the work of mourning. This raises interesting implications for the study of evolving doctrines on death, resurrection, and the afterlife. The views herein seem to correspond to a Socratic ideal - might I humbly suggest searching out Lemon & Donaghy 2006 for an overview?

I am struck by the poetic use of the concept of love in the language of religion and religious phraseology (i.e. the martyr of love), and see many linkages to the philosophers, ascetics and theologians who wrote treatises on the nature of love in an attempt to codify the symptoms. I use the word ‘symptoms’ because it seems to fit with your discussion across pages 3-4, of the “lovers who die of love” and the “lover’s death wish”, where the poet uses the hyperbole(?) that they are ill or on the brink of death because of their strong passion. The description of the lovers yearning and pining before finally relenting to the power of their emotion is reminiscent of the concept of kenosis, I think - as per Christian theology, this is the concept of emptying one’s own will and becoming entirely receptive to God’s divine will. I can direct you to Parcell 2007, which explains it quite well in a way that I think would support your arguments here in terms of the unyielding strength of destiny and emotion.

After numerous rereadings, I can think of no further comments to make; I hope the points I have noted above are helpful.

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
Interesting work - well researched, the knowledge of the subject matter shines through clearly. As such, I have minimal comments.

First, the overview and subsequent contrasting of metrical patterns, motifs, imagery, and phraseology was particularly well done. My only suggestion might be to see if citing Jordan & Jordan 2001 when discussing courtly love would help to further support your point?

My only other comment relates to section 3, and how the poet aims to invoke wonder in the audience via rhetorical strategies, such as antithesis and metaphorical inversions, while contemplating human destiny and the transience of existence. I feel this creates a disconnect between the signified and signifier, leading to questioning normal perception and therefore suggesting a reality where the ordinary is transformed into the miraculous. Does this speak to the poet’s own contemplation of human destiny, in an attempt to overcome their own past? I read it as an inversion of their prior personal regret.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] November 1, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for Revised Manuscript - JMS-D-18-0066-R1

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0066-R1  
**Title:** Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

Your revised manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies. It will be returned to the previously assigned peer reviewers for their feedback.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Sincerely,  
_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

📎 ATTACHED COVER LETTER - RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (JMS-D-18-0066-R1 cover letter.docx):

To the editorial board of the Journal of Medieval Studies,  
Thank you for providing feedback from the anonymous peer reviewers. To accompany my revised manuscript, please find below my responses to these reviewers.

**_Response to Reviewer #1:_**  
Many thanks for your astute review. I appreciated your question regarding the use of rhetorical devices; historically, yes, that their proscribed use (or overuse) would hinder spontaneity was indeed a critique of the time. As one who strongly believes in poetic spontaneity, I feel my lack of elaboration on this point was an oversight in my original manuscript - I have added a paragraph discussing this on page 5.

And apologies for the stray typos! You are correct, they were indeed the result of a rather unrepentant distraction. I appreciate you catching them, my mind was clearly elsewhere at the time.

**_Response to Reviewer #2:_**  
I am elated that you enjoyed this offering, and your comments were indeed exceedingly helpful. I have rarely had trouble infusing my writing with passion and feeling, but recently I have found a new muse to imbue my words with greater meaning - I am delighted that was recognized.

Thank you for the insightful remark re: the discussion of morality, fate, and destiny. Indeed, you have penetrated to the very heart of the matter there - the restorative effect of love, of that love imbuing immortality. Your comment was phrased brilliantly, I have reworked lines 216-225 to incorporate your point; I am eager to know what you think of it!

Your suggestion of a correspondence to a Socratic ideal was very helpful. I admit I am no philosopher, but luckily I know someone exceptionally well-versed in that field who I am sure would be happy to consult with me.

Likewise, what a clever parallel to be made to religious phraseology. I was very intrigued by your mention of kenosis. That emptying of one’s will and replacing it with that of another - whether God or the beloved - seems to fit in quite well with the disease/death motif wherein the defenses of the lover are attacked and their walls are breached. (And yes, your use of ‘hyperbole’ was the correct term, do not worry! Somebody seems to be introducing you to the world of poetry, how wonderful.) Indeed, the metaphor on lines 176 to 79 - of the pair as two blades constituting a pair of scissors - implies both a coming together in force while also a necessary togetherness, in which one part of the whole is useless alone. I have elaborated upon this idea on page 4, but I feel there is much more to be discussed on this topic, should we have the opportunity.

**_Response to Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you for your response. Your suggested citation was indeed helpful, that is now included on page 2. As for your question regarding the poet’s intentionality - I’m afraid I do not have a firm answer for you. The historical record is sparse on their background so there is no evidence that speaks to something in their past that their work is specifically alluding to. I must admit that I recently have had my own personal regrets around misinterpreting words that were not intended, so I am hesitant to ascribe any such meaning here.

I look forward to seeing if there are any further comments for revision.

Warmest regards,  
[author name redacted]

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] December 3, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0066-R1 - Paper accepted

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0066-R1  
**Title:** Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper “Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry” has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

The Editorial Board will send you further details, including a journal publishing agreement form and page proofs of your article, in due course.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS (AND EDITOR, if indicated):

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
No typos found this time around! And your additional paragraphs re: the critique of spontaneity were an excellent addition, I think that only served to strengthen an already strong paper. I have no hesitation in recommending this manuscript for publication.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
I am very happy that you found my comments helpful! While poetry is not my field of specialty, I felt there were some insights I could offer to you from my own field to try and improve what was an already excellent piece of scholarly work. I feel those insights were incorporated seamlessly in the revision - clearly you have an excellent rapport with the colleague you consulted with.

I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication strongly enough.

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
I am pleased you incorporated my suggested citation; and I notice that the section was reworked slightly, I think it reads more coherently now.

Back to my original review’s question on intentionality - I appreciate your candor. Of course, if there is no evidence to support any claims one could make, let us err on the side of responsible academic scholarship. My question was mostly one of idle curiosity, I don’t feel that an answer was needed for this paper. That being said, the paper is excellent. I am pleased to recommend its publication in this journal.

**_Editors’ comments:_** With all reviewers in agreement, this work has been automatically accepted for publication.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] December 3, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

I find myself once again writing an unusual email to you, again regarding your peer review correspondence with Reviewer #2. I don’t know how else to ask this, but… was this all sarcasm? I find it hard to believe these exceedingly generous words all of a sudden, particularly following your last few interactions with this reviewer (and I won’t even ask how you managed to discern their identity).

If this is some sort of elaborate prank, I do not appreciate my journal being unwittingly dragged into it.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

[ **From** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **Date** :] December 3, 2018

[ **Subject** :] Re: Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dear Dr. Copley,

I assure you there is no prank! Frankly, I am a bit insulted that you would accuse me of such a thing. I take my work very seriously, and indeed, all of my correspondence with each of the reviewers was entirely sincere. If a colleague and I suddenly find ourselves to be newly in sync on a variety of topics, is that not a cause for celebration rather than suspicion?

I give you my word that there is nothing underhanded or untoward happening here - merely vigorous academic discussion, masterful debate, and a newfound appreciation for a colleague’s expertise in a variety of areas. I hope this will not impact the publication of my paper in any way; as you are well aware, all the reviews were glowing this time around! 

Warmest regards,  
Yusuf Al-Kaysani, PhD  
_Associate Professor, Department of the Arts  
Faculty of Humanities, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] January 2, 2019  
[ **Subject** :] Online publication notice for JMS-D-18-0066-R1

**Article Title:** Incurable romantics: love and destiny in Arabic poetry  
**Journal Title:** Journal of Medieval Studies  
**Author(s):** Dr. Yusuf Al-Kaysani  
**Online publication complete:** 02-JAN-2019

Dear Dr. Al-Kaysani,

The final corrections to your proof have been made. Further corrections cannot be made. Your article is now published online at: http://dx.doi.org/18.0066/j.medistud.2019.01.02

Please note access to the full text of this article will depend on your personal or institutional entitlements.

This article can already be cited using the year of online availability and the DOI. You will be automatically notified by email once the full bibliographic details are available.

To track the status of your article throughout the publication process, please use our article tracking service via the online editorial system at https://editorialsys.com/jms.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Author Support

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> I think their participation in that panel clearly did our boys some good… All part of Andromache and Quynh’s devious plan, no doubt. 😏


	7. Of the people I’ve been taught to hate

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] September 23, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-18-0017

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0069  
**Title:** “Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your submission entitled "“Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-18-0069 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] October 17, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0069 - Revision request

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0069  
**Title:** “Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your paper has now been assessed by the assigned peer reviewers. Whilst the paper is basically acceptable for publication there are a number of points raised via the peer review process which we feel require clarification before we can proceed. I am appending the reviewer comments below for your attention.

I must stress that each comment should be considered and it would be very useful if you could detail, in a covering letter submitted together with your revised manuscript, how you have answered each point.

To submit a revision, please go to https://editorialsys.com/jms and login as an Author. You will find your submission record there.

Please return to the Journal of Medieval Studies within 45 days.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS:

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
A thought-provoking exploration of the historiographic motif of coexistence, particularly when framed in terms of cross-cultural influences as well as the typical conflict versus cooperation dichotomy. I think you outline the two main competing schools of thought here with a great deal of respect; might I suggest looking into Kashtupper (1980) as well? They also discuss this area through the lens of complex symbiotic interactions, I feel it would add further support to your arguments here.

Very interesting overview of religious piety, social cohesion, and political autonomy on page 2; I thought the linkages to the philosophical treatises of the time provided excellent context.

The revision of the notion of the traditional view of ‘coexistence’ as being viewed as a product of group dynamics constructed by religion or ethnicity is certainly food for thought. To instead consider the concept as a product of a multitude of contending identities and social, cultural, and religious tensions that existed between the individual and a variety of possible groups extends an additional layer of complexity that I think would be of benefit.

One other minor item to mention - I think there is a typo in line 279, in your discussion of the poem you cited earlier on that page. I believe instead of “the lover”, you accidentally wrote “my lover”.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
An exceptional paper! The depth and breadth of research, the care in coaxing forth the arguments, the careful selection of historical evidence, are all beyond measure and speak to the author’s unparalleled mind! How can a peer reviewer be expected to critique such an effort? Indeed, how can one even find those who would dare to call themselves peers in the face of this scholarly prowess! I will attempt to provide some insights here, but I find it hard to improve upon near-perfection.

First I will begin by complimenting your point on page 2 regarding cross-cultural contacts and cultural borrowing. While this is a valuable means of analysis for intellectual and cultural histories, it does little to illuminate our understanding of daily life. What of the small day to day intricacies, the domesticity of it all? Indeed, your proposal of focusing on the individual rather than the group to obtain deeper insights of social history could escape some of the problems of "myth and counter-myth" that tend to dominate this subject.

Your selection of poetic exemplars was exquisitely chosen - all are woven in seamlessly into the paper. Has somebody been tutoring you in poetic theory and interpretation? I find myself in agreement with almost all of your points. The vulpine imagery speaks to the tension of invaders (e.g. comparisons to a wolf attacking the flock), and the subject of these criticisms speak to interesting power differentials. Does this potentially link back to the idea of martyrdom?

I particularly enjoyed reading of the competitive poetic exchanges during this historical era. The theory of “poetic grace” in exploring spiritual truth, that being infused with the grace of God was both a prerequisite for, and inspiration of, good poetry, lays the groundwork for this clash between the theological and secular poets. The challenges between the theologians and lay poets you included were fascinating; I have to wonder whether they ever contemplated that centuries later others would be reading their tempestuous back-and-forth barbs and continue to argue over obscure questions and meanings!

I find myself considering interfaith marriages in a new light after reading your argument for such unions as transgressive challenges to the social order, as visibly invisible tactics of social amelioration. The differences between various prophetic religions in what constituted interfaith marriage is a fascinating examination of the policing of group membership. I wonder, did this membership exchange between groups create opportunities for cultural exchange as well? This circles back nicely to the points you made previously about daily life and the routines created over time when building a life with one’s beloved.

As a student of literature, I can see the compelling academic argument you make for the fact that the ultimate strength in these stories is derived from the power of faith. However, I must admit that the romantic in me instead latches on to the notion of love conquering all! Perhaps there is room for both to come together here.

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
An ambitious contribution to the scholarly literature. I suggest better defining your terms at the start - the categories of acceptance/tolerance and exclusion/violence have modern connotations that mistakenly suggest medieval peoples had contradictory attitudes towards religious minorities - but it has been argued (see Wayne 2015) that tolerance and intolerance were inseparable, and a minority’s religious inferiority justified both acceptance and repression. Whereas today we might use the term ‘tolerance’, in the past this was likely closer to a grudging acceptance.

That said, your careful contrast of contemporary against historical perceptions of interfaith marriage was well done. As I am sure you are well aware, it is all too easy in our field to reverse-engineer current views onto the past. Until we have longevity on our side in order to be able to speak of what happened hundreds of years ago with complete certainty, we must be careful with our conclusions and assumptions - I am glad you did not fall into this trap.

The section on interfaith marriages as tactics of subversive adjustment by individuals to dominant power structures was an intriguing one, though I question whether the visibility of such a tactic is all too soon relegated into invisibility through the blind spots of the power structure that necessitated the actions in the first place?

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] November 3, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for Revised Manuscript - JMS-D-18-0069-R1

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0069-R1  
**Title:** “Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

Your revised manuscript was received for reconsideration for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies. It will be returned to the previously assigned peer reviewers for their feedback.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Sincerely,  
_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

📎 ATTACHED COVER LETTER - RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS (JMS-D-18-0069-R1 cover letter.docx):

To the Journal of Medieval Studies Editorial Board,  
I am appreciative of the feedback on my most recent manuscript submission (reference number JMS-D-18-0069). I am submitting a revised version of this manuscript, with revisions suggested from the reviewer’s comments. My specific responses to the reviewers can be found here:

**_Response to Reviewer #1:_**  
Thank you for your comments. Your suggestion of Kashtupper (1980) as another possible source was much appreciated, I have used that reference throughout but most notably on page 4. Likewise, I have expanded on the notion of contending identities (see lines 580-597).

And thank you for noting the minor typographical error. You were correct, that should have read “the lover” - that is an embarrassing mistake, I do not know what I could have been thinking of there.

**_Response to Reviewer #2:_**  
Thank you for your lovely words, I am exceedingly flattered by your praise. Though I must admit that I cannot take all the credit! I may have received some very helpful support from somebody with poetry in their soul; their words tend to envelop me, so it seems only natural that some of their knowledge has permeated my mind and made its way into my work.

Your point about martyrdom is very insightful! Yes, you are absolutely correct - there is examination of this both from a literary point of view (in the sense of metaphorically sacrificing one’s self to/for love) as well as a historical one, where victims of execution were portrayed as martyrs in a confrontational strategy against the ruling class. I have elaborated upon this point on page 3, do you feel this addition is beneficial?

I am very pleased you enjoyed the section on competitive poetic defamation. Such works were certainly meant to follow the rules of the poetic agon in which they were deployed, rather than focusing on the biography of their target, though I feel in some instances the provocation did become a bit vulgar and overly personal. I suspect if they were to look back on it, those poets likely regretted their harsh words - had they spent their time in more careful discussion, I am sure they could have learned much from each other.

And you make another astute point about interfaith marriages as an opportunity of cultural exchange. Yes, this tended to occur in various ways. Most of the examples of such relationships documented via the visual or written arts were amongst those of the social elite, meaning there was some transmission of ideals and rituals via their social status and a desire to emulate the upper class. However, outside of the ruling class, these marriages created ‘gaps’ for social mobility. I have expanded on the ways this challenged discrete religious and social strata on page 6. (As an aside, the University of Malta’s library has what is said to be an excellently curated collection of Mediterranean poetry specifically featuring interfaith relationships; if one were interested in further exploring this topic, that would certainly be a place to visit. For research purposes, of course.)

I eagerly await your response.

**_Response to Reviewer #3:_**  
Thank you for your review. I have taken your advice on more clearly defining my terminology at the start of my paper, but I do not entirely agree with the point around tolerance and intolerance being inseparable. Indeed, I found myself rather unimpressed with the argument of Wayne 2015; instead I have additionally cited Voorhees (2001) and Pokorny (2003), which I think better explains my position.

Regarding your comment on the visibility of marriage as a tactic - I have clarified this paragraph with the characterization of tactics as the purview of the non-powerful, as an adaptation to the environment created by the strategies of the powerful. Indeed, such a tactic works in isolated actions, blow by blow. If sustained, these can cumulatively generate results, by the regulating authorities but also results unforeseen by the actors themselves.

I look forward to the reviewers’ response to this revision.

Best wishes,  
[author name redacted]

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] December 6, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Author Notification of Editor Decision for JMS-D-18-0069-R1 - Paper accepted

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-18-0069-R1  
**Title:** “Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

I am pleased to confirm that your paper "“Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts" has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Medieval Studies.

Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.

The Editorial Board will send you further details, including a journal publishing agreement form and page proofs of your article, in due course.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMENTS OF REVIEWERS (AND EDITOR, if indicated):

**_Reviewer #1:_**  
I do not have much to add after my re-read of the manuscript - I find the revisions clear and informative, the edits have all benefited the overall flow and understanding of the paper. This is a very good submission, I recommend it for publication in this journal.

**_Reviewer #2:_**  
And here I thought that the prior iteration of this manuscript was already superb - but these alterations have improved what I thought was beyond improvement. Isn’t it funny how first impressions can sometimes be deceiving?

Regarding the competitive poetic exchanges - I too agree that there was likely regret involved, and that more cautious communication could have avoided such harshness. But without the past having occurred as it did, we would not be here today reading and discussing that history. Perhaps all has happened as it has meant to - like destiny, I believe somebody recently (and very romantically!) told me.

What more can I say other than to offer effusive praise of your revisions? Expounding on the concepts of martyrdom and mobility has strengthened your arguments; I am grateful you took my humble comments into account. I can think of nothing more to add other than to unreservedly recommend this manuscript for publication immediately.

Oh, and re: Malta - that would be nice. ;)

**_Reviewer #3:_**  
While I think we may find ourselves at a stalemate in our interpretations of Wayne 2015, I must admit that your additional citations and working of the tolerance/intolerance section does now read more clearly. I will not hold it against you that my suggestion was not incorporated.

Likewise, explaining the characterization of tactics has helped my understanding of your argument there. I am not entirely sure that the ‘cumulative effect’ has a great deal of evidence, in terms of a small band of actors managing to have far and wide-reaching effects, but the point is taken.

My critiques have been sufficiently addressed to move this paper forward to publication.

**_Editors’ comments:_** With all reviewers in agreement, this work has been automatically accepted for publication.

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] December 6, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dr. Di Genova -

I don’t know how I ended up in the middle of whatever bizarre courtship ritual is going on between you and your “blinded” peer reviewer, but could you both kindly stop using my journal to flirt with each other? Please consider this your FINAL WARNING - this is NOT the intended purpose of the peer review process!!!

Sincerely,  
James Copley, PhD  
_Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

[ **From** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **Date** :] December 6, 2018  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Ad-hoc note from the editor

Dr. Copley,

I am sorry if you feel the peer review correspondence crossed a line. However, as I reread it, I merely see a colleague enthusiastically extolling the virtues of their peer’s work. Surely there is nothing untoward there? Furthermore, I believe you did warn us previously to tone down the level of animosity in our reviews - so this is an improvement, no?

Best wishes,  
Nicolo Di Genova, PhD  
_Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies  
Faculty of Social Sciences, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] January 2, 2019  
[ **Subject** :] Online publication notice for JMS-D-18-0069-R1

**Article Title:** “Of the people I’ve been taught to hate”: Interfaith relationships in middle English texts  
**Journal Title:** Journal of Medieval Studies  
**Author(s):** Dr. Nicolo Di Genova  
**Online publication complete:** 02-JAN-2019

Dear Dr. Di Genova,

The final corrections to your proof have been made. Further corrections cannot be made. Your article is now published online at: http://dx.doi.org/18.0069/j.medistud.2019.01.02

Please note access to the full text of this article will depend on your personal or institutional entitlements.

This article can already be cited using the year of online availability and the DOI. You will be automatically notified by email once the full bibliographic details are available.

To track the status of your article throughout the publication process, please use our article tracking service via the online editorial system at https://editorialsys.com/jms.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Author Support

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> You know, I honestly don’t know which I had more fun writing - the snarky insults at the start of the fic, or the lovey-dovey gushing at the end. Both put a smile on my face, as I hope they did for you as well. Please drop me a comment to let me know! 😊
> 
> Only the epilogue remains…


	8. Epilogue - He is all and he is more

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu); Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 14, 2019  
[ **Subject** :] Submission confirmation for JMS-D-19-1099

**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-19-1099  
 **Title** : “He is all and he is more”: the Evolution of Courtly Love throughout Medieval Catholic and Islamic Literature  
Journal of Medieval Studies

Dear Drs. Di Genova and Al-Kaysani,

Your submission entitled "“He is all and he is more”: the Evolution of Courtly Love throughout Medieval Catholic and Islamic Literature" has been received by the Journal of Medieval Studies. It has been assigned the manuscript number JMS-D-19-1099 and has been assigned to an Editor who will handle the double-blinded peer review process.

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to our online editorial system as an author. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

_Journal of Medieval Studies_ Editorial Board

[ **From** :] James Copley (jcopley@bu.edu)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu); Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 14, 2019  
[ **Subject** :] Re: New manuscript submission alert - JMS-D-19-1099

IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE?!?!?!

James Copley, PhD  
 _Editor-in-Chief  
Journal of Medieval Studies_

> _[ **From** :] Journal of Medieval Studies (jms.eds@jms.com)  
> [ **To** :] James Copley (jcopley@bu.edu)  
> [ **Date** :] February 14, 2019  
> [ **Subject** :] New manuscript submission alert - JMS-D-19-1099 _
> 
> _**Ms. Ref. No.** : JMS-D-19-1099  
>  **Title** : “He is all and he is more”: the Evolution of Courtly Love throughout Medieval Catholic and Islamic Literature  
> Journal of Medieval Studies_
> 
> _Notification to the Editor-in-Chief:_
> 
> _A new manuscript has been submitted, entitled "“He is all and he is more”: the Evolution of Courtly Love throughout Medieval Catholic and Islamic Literature"._
> 
> _Submitted by (all co-authors listed below):_
> 
>   1. _Dr. Nicolo Di Genova_
>   2. _Dr. Yusuf Al-Kaysani_
> 

> 
> _Please log into the online editorial system in order to assign this paper to its managing editor and peer reviewers. The URL is https://editorialsys.com/jms._
> 
> _Journal of Medieval Studies Editorial Board  
> _

[ **From** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] James Copley (jcopley@bu.edu); Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 14, 2019  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Re: New manuscript submission alert - JMS-D-19-1099

Dear Dr. Copley,

I assure you this submission is no joke.

However, I have noticed an uncommon level of animosity in your response to our manuscript submission. I do hope you will do your best to keep your interactions with us civil. I think I speak for both myself and my co-author when I say that we managed to adopt a cordial tone in our peer review correspondence, as you previously requested of us; we hope you will offer us the same respect.

Thank you for considering our work for your journal.

Best wishes,  
Nicolo Di Genova, PhD  
 _Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies  
Faculty of Social Sciences, Old Guard University_

[ **From** :] Yusuf Al-Kaysani (y.alkaysani@oguni.edu)  
[ **To** :] Nicolo Di Genova (n.digenova@oguni.edu); James Copley (jcopley@bu.edu)  
[ **Date** :] February 14, 2019  
[ **Subject** :] Re: Re: Re: New manuscript submission alert - JMS-D-19-1099

I could not have said it better nor more succinctly than my dear colleague!

I must say, Dr. Copley, that your email was quite surprising to us. In our combined years of paper submissions, nobody has ever reacted to a manuscript with such suspicion or skepticism. If we may suggest directing your attention towards proceeding with the peer-review process? We are _eagerly_ looking forward to receiving the reviewer comments.

PS - Happy Valentine’s Day! ;)

Warmest regards,  
Yusuf Al-Kaysani, PhD  
 _Associate Professor, Department of the Arts  
Faculty of Humanities, Old Guard University_

☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾ ☉ ☽☉☾

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> I like to think Nicky and Joe came up with the idea for this co-authored paper while on a beach in Malta together (melee-free this time, unless we’re talking about the cocktail)… don’t ask me how they were able to focus on something other than each other for long enough to actually produce a manuscript though. I’m sure there were plenty of ‘distractions’ in the process. 😏
> 
> Anyway. This was so! much! fun! to write. I hope you all had just as good a time reading it - please please pretty please drop me a comment to let me know, it literally brightens up my day to get something nice in my inbox (and we could all use more of that these days!).
> 
> One final note - as I was drafting this I was making a few (okay, _copious_ ) notes on the side as to the plot points I pictured happening ‘behind the scenes’ of these emails. I’d like to write a narrative piece to accompany/complement this puppy because the ideas are definitely there, it’s just gonna be a matter of finding the time and motivation. And then I’ve also got a few other ideas to tack on and extend this as a series… Gahhhh, there are literally dozens of other plot bunnies I’ve got gnawing at my brain that are all fighting for dominance, including one fic that I’m right in the middle of drafting that I _hope_ to get posted soon - so keep an eye out for a new fic dropping at the start of February, and maybe we’ll see more of our fave nerdy academic duo after that wraps up. 🤞 (And I’m not saying that comments will work as bribes, but they _can_ be motivating, you know? 😇)


End file.
